Search

Discourse and ideology are interrelated concepts in social sciences and the humanities and are even occasionally employed interchangeably. This paper sheds light on their relationship in academic discourse and examines the role of sociology as a scientific field in its conceptualization. Using bibliometric analysis, we examined 15,716 academic publications mentioning "discourse" or "ideology" in their title and written in English by American and British scholars between 1966 and 2015. The investigation focused on the two terms' conceptual environment, areas of usage, journals, and the organizations to which the authors were affiliated. First, we conclude that although some sociology researchers have attempted to create a sociological definition for the concept of discourse, sociologists are not its most active users. The same is true for ideology. These concepts have established niches in other disciplines (political science and history for "ideology," and educational science and linguistics for "discourse"). Second, throughout the years, the field of discourse studies has become more diversified and fragmented than that of ideology. Third, the leading organizations in both fields are prestigious American and British universities, which indicates that discourse and ideology are elements of the intellectual elites' language. Fourth, the concept of discourse was more frequently applied than that of ideology in the years 2010–2015, and we expect that it will remain popular among scholars in the next decade. As for ideology, we believe that new social challenges could foster the rediscovery of this concept in the near future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper argues, by way of empirical example, that the long-accepted contention that participant-observation research can best be accomplished by strangers who become like natives is by no means the only or even best approach. Rather, natives can be trained to distance themselves from their own group, making use of inherently objective sociological and anthropological perspectives. Such natives-as-strangers are more likely to be cognizant of nuances in the cultural life being studied. Using the example of the author's research among Jews, the paper also outlines some of the risks of this native-as-stranger approach, foremost among them being the tendencies to take too much for granted and to become alienated from one's native group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I argue that the selection of appropriate statistical procedures is at best haphazard without a careful consideration of the consequences of one's research, and that significant distortions often will result when applied concerns are ignored. I advance the hypothesis that typical conceptions of basic research in sociology preclude the proper use of statistics. From this it follows that mainstream, quantitative sociology can begin to save itself only by taking seriously the question of applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the journal space available to sociologists. The journal space available to sociologists has increased very substantially in the past decade or so, primarily through the founding of specialized sociological journals and interdisciplinary ones related to sociological specialties. There may be a scarcity of publication outlets for sociologists in some specialties and for those who write on some topics, but for most sociologists, there are ample outlets for most if not all of the reasonably good papers they can produce, including some rather offbeat, nonmainstream ones and those reporting replications. Of course, there is a scarcity of space in the most prestigious and conspicuous journals, as there will be as long as there is a distinct prestige hierarchy among sociological journals. The very high rejection rates of some sociology journals result not from an absolute scarcity of space available to the discipline but from the distinct prestige hierarchy of the journals and a widespread preference among sociologists to publish in general rather than specialized journals. Nevertheless, it is true that Ph. D.s in several other disciplines typically have longer publication lists than sociologists, for several reasons, one of which is a greater availability of journal space.

This article presents Robert A. Stebbins' reaction to several comments on his paper which appeared in a previous issue of The American Sociologist, which provided an account of professional and amateur sociology in the U.S. Stebbins states that he wishes only to offer a single clarification of a poorly communicated passage that caught Althauser's attention. It concerns the four conditions that encourage the emergence and persistence of an avocational interest in science. According to Stebbins, when he wrote the passage, he had Kuhn's concept of normal science in mind. Amateurism takes root in those sciences or areas of sciences that lack a dominant paradigm as the exclusive grade to scholarly research. These fields are in a preparadigm stage of development in which several schools of thought compete. Why then, is there no amateur sociology? Among the answers to this question, according to Stebbins, are that sociologists lack a tradition of amateurism, a vision that amateurs could help professionals with some of their research interests, and a willingness to organize nonprofessional assistance on any basis other than temporary. The same conclusions could likely be reached for other sciences.